I'm not advocating socialism. The Steinbeck quote was in response to this part of the post: "I can either complain about the 1% or I can go out and try to be one of the 1%. I'll take the latter path ;)"

I voted against incumbents. I was largely unsuccessful in voting any out. I very well may have voted for every loser but one.

The incumbent was young. He is a minority. And he is a Republican. The fact that he was a young minority is the reason he made the cut. Old white guys are creating the logjam(along with the President's "We don't negotiate with terrorists or Republicans" policy).

Posted by examinerebb on 10/19/2013 12:39:00 PM (view original):That's me as well - socially quite a ways left of center, fiscally quite a ways right of center. I think universal healthcare is a wonderful idea. I also think it's batsh*t crazy to create new taxes to pay for it when we have all kinds of potential revenue sitting on the table. Tax loopholes that can be closed, inefficient government spending (I'm talking about the $200 hammer, not necessarily spending on programs I don't agree with as a whole) and the like.

The difference is in the messaging. I'm willing to bet that if you asked conservatives "Do you support the general idea that all Americans should have access to affordable healthcare?" the vast majority would say that they do. They just want to find a reasonable way to pay for it, outside of "take some more from those who have to give to those who don't". But liberals have done a fantastic job of convincing Americans that conservatives want to deny coverage to Americans. Hell, the Hillary Clinton for President 2016 Facebook page had a post about all the things the Republicans asked for (and didn't get) during the shutdown. Three of the items were "deny heathcare coverage to the president and staff, deny healthcare coverage to the cabinet and staff, deny healthcare coverage to congress and staff." Nobody wanted to deny coverage - they wanted to get rid of the government subsidy. It would seem that the liberal mindset then is that, if the government isn't providing something (or paying for a chunk of it), that thing isn't available. The government isn't giving me a subsidy to buy healthcare - they must be denying me access to healthcare as well.

" I also think it's batsh*t crazy to create new taxes to pay for it when we have all kinds of potential revenue sitting on the table. Tax loopholes that can be closed, inefficient government spending (I'm talking about the $200 hammer, not necessarily spending on programs I don't agree with as a whole) and the like."

This is the part that's really getting me to lean to the right fiscally. We aren't very efficient when it comes to spending, that much is obvious. I love the idea of universal health care, but creating new taxes to pay for it does seem off. And as much as the liberal part of me thinks "Give better opportunities to those less fortunate to succeed, and spend money on programs to do that," I can't help but wonder that so much of that money goes to waste, and whether or not the programs are run properly, and if some of these programs are actually helping society. My gut is beginning to tell me that it is not. I would love to dive into each department and see where all the money is going, and cut all the crap that's wasteful.

So if the 2016 republican nominee can somehow be someone who leans left on social issues, and is more right-center on fiscal issues, there's a really good chance I'm voting for him or her. I'm not sure that person has a shot of getting the nomination, but that's probably my ideal candidate at this point.